View Single Post
Old 11-28-2011, 06:34 AM   #370
Greg Anos
Grand Sorcerer
Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Greg Anos ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 11,532
Karma: 37057604
Join Date: Jan 2008
Device: Pocketbook
Quote:
Originally Posted by elcreative View Post
Never said control of physical dissemination... lending, reselling or giving away doesn't change the physical production of a physical object... but why should I be forced to let some third party redo the object into an inferior digital version when the original is produced as a specific art object with its physicality intrinsic to its content... I'm not talking about general works, I'm hypothesising the production of a specific item where the physicality is intrinsic to its concept and value as an artistic expression... such an object doesn't require control of digital doppelgangers as such a thing can't exist, it simply requires no inferior attempt to copy the item...

You were the one stating that just because a person produced a book didn't give them any right to stop a third party digitising it even if it wasn't legally available in digital format... never mind today's technology, that's still wrong, morally, ethically and legally... there are many things that I can do but it doesn't mean that such actions are necessarily valid/correct/ethical/moral/legal just because I can do them...
What is copyright? It a grant of limited monopoly to ecourage the creation of new intellectual products. It is done for the long term benefit of the public (to whom the product will eventually revert), not the creator. It is an economic construct, not a moral one. As such, one should be able to show economic harm before going to court. If there is no effort to make a product available for profit, no economic harm can be shown. If you want to have a situation for prevention of a product from being produced digitally, then I would recommend a continuing tax/fee be paid to the copyright authorities. Then you can show harm (the tax/fee costs) for a court case. This is more detail that I planned to go into, but you wanted an answer...

All forms of real property get taxes in all sorts of jurisdictions, I'm very tired of I.P. people thinking they don't have to pay for anything, but get all the benefits of their creation, and endless control.

T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.
Greg Anos is offline   Reply With Quote